xxx j v PROCEEDINGS, NOVEMBER. 



course a limit to the rise of wages, but this limit was a long way off. 

 The labourer could not earn more than his labour produced, but what 

 the labourer actually got was a very small portion of what his labour 

 produced In conclusion he pointed out that a more equitable distribu- 

 tion of the produce of labour was a boon so great in itself as to be well 

 worth some cost, and that we need not be dissatisfied because less 

 luxuries are produced for the few very rich, if more comforts are 

 provided for the many poor ; not even though the loss m value on 

 the luxuries exceeds the gain in value on the comforts. 



Mr R M. Johnston read a paper criticising Mr. Ogilvy's views. 

 He said it afforded him great pleasure to find himself m agreement 

 on so many points with one like Mr. Ogilvy, whose well-known 

 generous sympathies for the amelioration of the condition of the masses 

 of the people must command the respect of all right thinking 

 persons. He took exception, however, to several of Mr. VS llv y, s 

 arguments, notably to that regarding rent. He favoured Ricardos 

 theory, now almost universally accepted, that "the rent of land is 

 determined by the excess of its produce over that which the same 

 application can secure from the least productive land in use. lie 

 also laid it down as an accepted doctrine of political economy 

 that rent formed no part of the price of agricultural P«><luce. He 

 dwelt at length upon this point, and illustrated by a table that any 

 increase in wages must fall upon consumers and not upon rent of land- 

 lord or the profit of the capitalist. He combated the idea that 

 the rich spent more in luxuries, pointing to the > large sums spent 

 bv the working classes in liquor and tobacco. He held that Mr, 

 Oailw's objections to his papers were based upon assumptions which 

 could"not be sustained when subjected to close scrutiny, and he could 

 onlv re-affirm that it was by increase of savings properly applied in 

 the creation of instruments, which will still more greatly multiply 

 the power of man that any improvement in the condition of the masses 

 can be successful. Without this the mere raising of wages could only 

 benefit a few industries at the expense of the many. 



Mr. Ogilvy said that the Society had now the two aspects of the 

 question before them, and it was for the members to judge. Mr. 

 Johnston had based his arguments principally on the generally accepted 

 opinion of Ricardo, but it should not be forgotten that the British 

 Parliament had repudiated it, in regard to the Highlands of Scotland 

 and Ireland, by the establishment of Land Courts, which introduced 

 an artificial element into what was held by some economists to be a 

 natural law. In regard to what Mr. Johnston said about the rent 

 forming no part of the price of agricultural produce, there were 

 some farmers present, and he asked them if they had to pay twice as 

 much as they now did for their labour, would they pay as much rent ? 



Mr. W. E. Shoobmdge also spoke on the subject at some length, 

 pointing out that the prices of labour were to a great extent fixed by 

 combinations which had been the secret of the success of all strikes. 

 He hoped the time would speedily come when arrangements would 

 be made whereby the labourer could get his fair share of the products 

 of labour without recourse to strikes. 



ACTINOMYCOSIS AND TUBERCULOSIS. 



Dr. Barnard read a paper on this subject, dealing with its 

 transmissibility of bovine diseases to human beings by the con- 

 sumption of th« meat of diseased animals. He showed that sucn 

 diseases had been transmitted. A central Hygienic Institute was 

 recommended by the last Intercolonial Stock Conference, to which all 

 cases of disease amongst animals should be referred from all the 

 colonies. Without some such institution it was not easy to see how 



